On Apr 9, 8:58 pm, rtdav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 7, 7:38 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I'm interested to know how one might justify saying that the rather
> obvious references are "mere exegesis" and therefore "irrelevant", yet
> make assumptions about what Luke felt were authentic and why he left a
> reference out.
There is a difference in our methods. I have added my own exegesis
whenever I felt it was relevant - but I expect it be read as my own
personal exegesis and given no more authority than that. But I am not
required to accept any one else's exegesis except, of course, as their
own exegesis.
My viewpoint is essentially that of Calvin. No one (not even Calvin)
stands between me and God. I have gone further than Calvin though,
because we know more today than we did is his day. I do not let the
Bible stand between me and God either. I feel it is foolish to read
the gospels as though they were somehow "truth". They are human
do***ents.
The gospel writers have personalities. I will call them by the usual
names, all of which are quite uncertain. Mark is sort of the salt-of-
the-earth, a simple man telling a marvelous story in simple words
(recent scholar****p has suggested that Mark was much less simple than
the picture he presents - but I am thinking of the impression he
makes). Matthew is a hell-and-brimstone preacher. Luke is a slightly
prissy intellectual (think C. S. Lewis). John has maybe a half-dozen
verses about the historical Jesus but mostly he is writing a
meditation about the Logos.
The lost do***ent called Q is quite impersonal. If there is an author
with a personality behind it I cannot detect him/her. I imagine it to
be product of a community of believers and not of a single author.
Using the concept of Q there are four non-trivial sources of
information about Jesus and his teaching - Q, Mark, special Luke and
special Matthew. Q matters the most for teaching and Mark for Jesus'
biography. Special Luke adds some teaching that it would be hard to go
without - the Prodigal Son, the good Samaritan and more. Special
Matthew can be ignored as rather uninspired folklore.
It is almost true that neither Matthew nor Luke knew any more about
Jesus than what they read in either Q or Mark. But both of them had
access to other information that was probably oral. The oral tradition
that Matthew knew was almost pure folklore. Luke knew some folklore
and, I fear, created some more on his own initiative (his nativity
narrative) but he also knew some valuable teachings.
Q is hard to follow on the question of heaven and hell. It appears to
some sense deny the reality of both of them as places in the physical
sense and to relocate them in the human psyche. I think this matter -
the eschatology in Q deserves more study that I am aware of. Mark
appears to accept the standard Jewish concepts of his day. Luke would
prefer to avoid the question.
And Matthew, as I said, is an angry man, an old-fa****oned hell and
brimstone preacher. IMHO we make a serious error if we read Jesus like
Matthew did.
God, of course, is Love.
All of the rest is commentary.
|
